In the wake of a spate of suicides, committed by gay teenagers who were each the target of homophobic bullying, the LGBTQ community and its allies celebrated National Coming Out Day on October 11. Together, these events have focused attention on movements to prevent bullying – particularly those aimed at LGBTQ (or perceived LGBTQ) youths – including the It Gets Better Project and The Trevor Project. The former invites members and allies of the LGBTQ community to upload encouraging videos to its website, the message being that “it gets better”; the latter operates a hotline for LGBTQ youths and young adults in crisis, and also provides resources to parents and educators.

As part of this anti- anti-gay backlash, a number of celebrities and public figures have shared their own experiences publicly – including Fort Worth City Councilman Joel Burns, whose heartbreaking speech went viral and was aired in full on various media outlets, including CNN (where I first saw it). I’ve embedded the video above; even though it’s rather long, clocking in at almost 13 minutes, I urge you to watch the whole thing. It will bring you to tears.

And, while you’re already a sobby, snotty mess, head on over to AR&AO, where Stephanie shares her own “coming out” story. These issues – homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, and the like – are relevant to animal rights activism simply because so many activists belong to marginalized groups; nonhumans are not the only animals exploited and mistreated en masse, for no reason other than the simple fact of their birth. All oppression is bad oppression, and all forms of oppression harm individual activists, as well as social movements and the beings for whom we advocate. These are not “special interests,” to be addressed only after the “important” work is done; these are our interests, to be tackled in concert with other “isms.”

To this end, Ari Solomon of A Scent of Scandal, Josh Hooten of The Herbivore Clothing Company and Jennifer Martin of Ink Brigade created a line of t-shirts to show solidarity with the victims of anti-LGBTQ bullying. Called “Bullies Suck,” the tees are available for purchase through Herbivore (just $20, with kids’ sizes, to boot!); all proceeds will be donated to The Trevor Project.

In honor of the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers (December 17), Ida highlights the words of Mirha-Soleil Ross, “a vegan, transsexual and sex worker justice advocate.” In snippets from several interviews, Ross addresses the topics of (radical) feminism within the animal rights movement; similarities between society’s demonization of prostitutes and coyotes; and the objectification of women and nonhuman animals – from all corners.

Johanna and Ida critique a recent anti-fur post written by The Vegan Shoe Lady (and later picked up and enthusiastically expounded upon by Taste Better!) in which the author encourages readers to engage in classism and sexism, as well as the shaming of sex workers and homeless people, in the course of their anti-fur activism. Because this just what the animal rights movement needs – to be perceived as a monolith of exclusionary white elitists, yes? Lovely!

When first I spotted this series of ads from Fur Free Alliance on Ads of the World, my mind immediately perceived the naked, brutalized human form as “female.” (Because, hey, isn’t it always?) “Ah, great, another hot, sexy, naked dead ‘chick’ getting all hot and sexy and naked and dead ‘for the animals.’ Just what we need!” So you can imagine my surprise, upon closer inspection, at finding a naked dude showing some abused skin for a pro-animal cause. A reversal of gender roles – hot damn!

In case you can’t view the images, here we have a series of three ads, each of which shows a naked, white male being hunted and tormented by a gleeful fox – who is obviously another human, most likely also male, decked out in a fox outfit, all mascot-like.

In the first ad, the human victim appears in the background; he’s sprawled unconscious on the ground, most likely dead, his naughty bits obscured by a strategically placed tree trunk. The fox stands off to the human’s left and in the foreground, legs spread shoulder-width apart, arms raised triumphantly. In his (her?) right hand/paw, the fox holds a gun. Most likely Mr./Ms. Fox went hunting, and “bagged” a human. (It’s worth noting that this slang – “bagged” – can be applied to sexual “conquests” as well bloodsports. Sex and violence, sex and death.) The caption reads, “Fox like this doesn’t exist.” (Fur Free Alliance is an international anti-fur organization; its website, which is in English, is “operated on behalf of the Fur Free Alliance by the Humane Society of the United States.” So while the caption appears to be broken English, I can’t tell whether this is intentional or not.)

The next ad in the series shows the fox, still toting a gun in his right hand, dragging the now-conscious man through the underbrush. Again, the man is stark naked, this time with a pile of leaves (or is that a bush?) covering his groin. With his left hand, the man is trying to grab onto a tree; with his left, he reaches toward the fox, as if imploring him for mercy. “How does it feel?” the caption demands.

After January’s “fur hag” post, I’d like follow up with several examples of anti-fur ads that I like – albeit, with a few caveats.*

While I’m rather ambivalent when it comes to PETA’s nude “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,” “Turn Your Back on Fur,” (and similar) campaigns, I quite like anti-fur ads which depict fur as the bloody, murderous mess that it is. (In theory, anyway…hence the forthcoming caveats.)

Each ad features a thin, white, conventionally attractive, stylishly dressed woman, decked out in a fur coat which once belonged to various animals. The knife-wielding women are covered in blood spatters – bright red blood, everywhere. The woman in the first ad is, inexplicably, rubbing the knife along her chin, as if in contemplation of fellatio (?). Needless to say, I prefer the other two ads in the series.

Of all PETA’s campaigns, I think I find the “fur hag” meme most offensive. While feminists can (and do) disagree on whether nudity and porn can ever be empowering for women, “fur hag” is a rather obvious gender-based slur, and draws upon a number of age-old stereotypes about women – which PETA further elucidates with their “fur hag” artwork.

To be fair, I have no idea whether PETA actually invented the term “fur hag” – but they’ve certainly been quite influential in launching “fur hag” into the mainstream. Wherever fur-wearing celebs are trashed – on gossip blogs, in fashion show protests, or even on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, “fur hag” is inevitably bandied about as an insult. Oftentimes by other women, who apparently see nothing sexist about denigrating women they dislike with misogynist slurs.

Let’s start by looking at the word “hag.”

Dictionary.com defines “hag” as:

1. an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.
2. a witch or sorceress.
3. a hagfish.

The first definition is obviously problematic: a hag is “an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.” While I have no qualms about calling people (women and men) who wear fur “vicious” or “malicious,” the term “hag” also attacks the fur wearer’s physical appearance and gender – a “hag” is “an ugly old woman.” In fact, the primary aspect of this definition involves appearance and gender – a “hag” is “an ugly old woman,” especially [but not necessarily] “a vicious or malicious one.” “Vicious” and “malicious” are somewhat extraneous to this definition; a “hag,” then, is chiefly “an ugly old woman.”

RIGHT: Mink in the wild, Rick Lechevia, flickr.com.jpg

Just for the record: I’m not particularly fond of the latest PETA2 ad featuring Khloe Kardashian. However, it’s not Kardashian’s state of (un)dress that bothers, rather, it’s the way in which PETA’s photographers have posed her that irks my feminist sensibilities. Though not as bad as, say, the Suicide Girls series, Ms. Kardashian is somewhat pornified in this ad: here, her body is turned away from the camera, so that it appears that the audience is following, ogling, stalking, sneaking up on her from behind. (From a racial perspective, I also find it interesting that PETA chooses to depict one of their few women of color models with a teased, “wild” hairstyle; while I know little about Khloe Kardashian, it doesn’t appear as though she normally wears her hair this way.)

Now, if this were just one of a handful of PETA ads that resemble a Playboy layout, I’d dismiss it as inevitable; PETA recruits a number of celebs to pose for their print ads, and no doubt some of these women (and men) will prefer more sexualized poses (in our pornified society, after all, women do trade on such images in order to get ahead; and I’d much rather criticize the culture which makes such compromises necessary, as opposed to the women doing the compromising). Yet, the ad fits a larger pattern wherein

women are more likely to pose in the nude than men; and, if you were to objectively compare the PETA print campaigns which feature nude men and women, you’d see that the portrayals are drastically different. Strip away PETA’s logo and slogans, and the women’s photos look like they were pulled straight out of a recent edition of Playboy. Young, white, thin, feminine, (conventionally) attractive women are displayed on all fours, backs arched, gazes vacant, faces and torsos turned away from the camera, submissive in posture, ready for a good fuckin’. In contrast, the men’s shots are fun, funny, inspiring, humorous, and full of personality.

So yes, I do think there’s more than enough room for a feminist critique of PETA’s ads, print and otherwise. That said, I don’t at all trust feminists who objectify non-human animals (by eating, wearing, gawking at, or otherwise exploiting them) to offer an unbiased critique of an animal advocacy group’s objectification of women. Assuming that PETA is indeed sexist*, speciesist feminists are no better: both objectify a group of living, sentient beings based solely on group membership.

Furthermore, these women have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo vis-à-vis their relation to (i.e., domination of) non-human animals: if they were to accept PETA’s premise that non-human animals have rights and interests equal to those of human animals, they’d have to reconsider their meat-eating, leather-wearing, dog-buying ways. In short, they would have to acknowledge (and thus, renounce) their human privilege.

So, how do the women at Feministing (et al.) claim moral superiority, again? While they may sometimes be correct in their interpretation of PETA’s campaigns, this veg*n feminist finds them no more trustworthy than an openly, unabashedly racist white feminist criticizing civil rights leaders for their misogyny. While their conclusions may be correct, their reasoning and motivations are forever suspect.

Just as they insist that PETA needs to lose the sexism before feminists will take them seriously, they need to lose the speciesism before they can expect veg*n women to give a damn about what they have to say.

* Which is a gross generalization, considering PETA’s vast membership numbers; better still to say that president Ingrid Newkirk and/or other higher-ups is/are sexist, and the organization is sexist to the extent that Newkirk/those in charge influences their hiring and PR policies.

PETA has had a cooperative relationship with Liz Claiborne Inc. for many years. Through our work together, the company has made—and continues to make—many great strides to reduce the suffering of animals who are used and abused in the clothing industry.

We would like to share an exciting development that has resulted from our discussions with Liz Claiborne Inc.: Juicy Couture—a high-end clothing company owned by Liz Claiborne Inc.—has now adopted a permanent fur-free policy. While Juicy Couture is still selling some fur items that were stocked before this policy was adopted, it has assured us that no new fur items will be procured and that as soon as the current stock of items has gone, the company will be completely fur-free.

We applaud Liz Claiborne and Juicy Couture for making this move, which will spare animals from suffering all the torment and abuse inherent in fur production.

Unfortunately, some companies continue to sell fur despite the fact that new evidence of horrific cruelty is exposed year after year. PETA Asia-Pacific’s recent undercover investigation in the Shandong region of China, for instance, produced video footage of rabbits who kicked and screamed as they were slaughtered. Another investigation into rabbit fur farms in France showed similar cruelty.

We need you to speak out and let the world know that it is never OK for any company to sell fur. Please let your voice be heard by urging these holdouts to go fur-free once and for all!

This video has been making the rounds, but I thought I might post it here anyhow, as an example of a PETA ad campaign that I quite like. It’s brutal, truthful, powerful and moving. It addresses the animal, human and environmental casualties of leather and fur “production.” It does so without pornifying women or men, without relying on ageist or sizeist slurs, and does not single out a particular culture for their use of animal skins. It calls out speciesism without engaging in another “ism” while doing so. It’s evidence that PETA, with all its faults, is a varied organization that can (sometimes!) produce engaging campaigns. After all, a little props when they do get it right would be nice, no? Positive reinforcement, yes?

And yet…I have yet to see “Whose Skin Are You In?” featured on a non-veg*n blog as of this writing. Just, you know, making a note. *shrug*

You can sign the fur-free pledge and order “Fake for the Animals’ Sake” stickers here.

Kinship Circle posted 3 letter-writing campaigns tonight:

DID YOU GET OUR LAST ALERT?
9/25/07: Shot From The Sky – Aerial Wolf Hunts
If your email provider censored any of our alerts, try to get them again.
Copy name of alert you want resent and email to: kinshipcircle [at] accessus.net

We need your help to convince Burton Snowboards to stop selling fur! The company used fur on its MKII jacket and has refused to meet with PETA to discuss adopting a fur-free policy despite PETA’s repeated requests for a meeting over the past several months. The fur industry kills millions of animals each year—including rabbits, minks, and foxes—in horribly cruel ways.

Animals on fur farms are kept—sometimes for years—in tiny, filthy cages, where they are surrounded by their own waste. They spend their entire miserable lives standing on the thin cage wires, never having a chance to dig, jump, or play. The way the farmers kill the animals would break your heart—some are killed by having their necks broken or their skulls beaten before being strung up by their legs and having their heads cut off, and others are killed by anal and vaginal electrocution. Yes, you read that right.

THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO’VE DONATED…
BUT WE ARE FAR SHORT OF OUR $5,000 GOAL.
Please help Kinship Circle spread the word on essential animal cruelty/protection issues. We just don’t have the funding like big national groups…but that won’t “shut us up” when it comes to the animals. Your support is deeply appreciated.

Prevent Cruel and Inhumane Treatment of Rabbits in Fur Fashion

Consumers for a Fur Free Society (CFFS), the Animal Protection Institute’s program to put an end to the use of fur in fashion, is asking retailers to drop all fur from their inventories. Additionally, CFFS is calling for retailers to take a stand against the cruel international fur trade by putting in writing their commitment to no longer sell fur or fur-trimmed items.

Your help is needed to be sure we target all U.S. retailers who are currently selling fur or fur-trimmed items in their stores and catalogs. We also need you to harness your consumer power to let retailers know that profiting from the suffering of animals used in the fur trade is not acceptable. Fur is never in fashion!

API recently released in the U.S. an investigation conducted by Animal Portugal. This investigation exposes shocking conditions and inhumane treatment of rabbits, whose fur is used in the international fur trade. Investigators noted inhumane handling practices, overcrowding, dead, dying and diseased animals, and cruel slaughtering methods.

UPDATE, 6/20/07, via Four Paws:

Milestone for International VIER PFOTEN Campaign

Today, the EU Parliament voted for an import and trading ban of dog and cat fur throughout the European Union. With that, the aim of VIER PFOTEN to get a regulation without a huge loophole for animal cruelty comes closer. The Members of Parliament rejected an exception proposed by the European Commission. Following this suggestion, dog and cat furs would continue to be imported if the furs do not originate from fur farms. “VIER PFOTEN welcomes this vote for animal welfare by the European Parliament”, as Thomas Pietsch, expert on wild animals at VIER PFOTEN, explains. “The deletion of the loophole is a big success for animal welfare, import of pelts from brutally tortured pets will be a thing of the past soon”.

In the context of an online campaign by VIER PFOTEN more than 160.000 e-mails were sent to the EU Ministers of Agriculture within the last ten weeks. Celebrities support the campaign: In Germany, Hannelore Hoger, Juli Zeh, Barbara Rütting and Peter Horton side with animal welfare and demand, together with VIER PFOTEN, to delete the exception clause in the draft regulation. According to a representative opinion poll from April 2007, more than 88,1 percent of the Germans support a strict import ban of dog and cat fur. [to be adjusted nationally]

——————

More than two million dogs and cats give up their lives for fur products every year in Asia. Many animals are specially bred for the fur industry, others are simply caught on the streets. Furs from dogs that often land on the dinner plate in Asian countries could also make their way into international trade. These dogs and cats generally vegetate in tiny wire cages. Brutal methods of killing are the order of the day, with some animals having their fur ripped off their still living bodies.

Hundreds of thousands of these furs make their way into the European Union each year where they are then sold to unsuspecting consumers as trimming on clothes, blankets, decoration articles or toys. Please help us close the European market to these products and stop this cruelty to animals!

There is a proposal for an import and trade prohibition being discussed at the moment in the EU. However, this prohibition is just limited to dog and cat furs that expressly originate from fur farms. The import of furs from other sources will continue to be allowed. For this reason VIER PFOTEN is starting an international campaign today for a loophole-free import prohibition! With your help, we would like to convince the European Parliament and the EU Member States to close the existing “loophole for animal cruelty” and to furthermore campaign for a statutory labelling obligation for all fur products. Our aim: No dog or cat fur to be allowed to make its way into the EU anymore! Time is running out as the final decision of the Council of Ministers is expected to be made on 7 May.

The federal Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act, H.R. 891, would require that all apparel containing any quantity of fur is accurately labeled–regardless of the fur’s monetary value–and also ban completely the sale and import of fur from raccoon dogs, members of the dog family native to China killed in large numbers for their fur.

Under current law, products containing quantities of fur valued under $150 can be sold in American stores without accurate labels. Consumers with ethical objections or allergies to fur may think a lack of a label means that they’re buying “faux” fur–but sadly, this is not always true.

Please visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center today, where you can email a letter to your representative urging him or her support and cosponsor the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act. You’ll also find additional information about how this Act will change current labeling laws for the better.

It opens:

“It was while attending Pamela Anderson’s wedding in St. Tropez last summer that Tommy Hilfiger began thinking about banning fur from his clothing line. When the actress introduced Hilfiger to PETA vice president Dan Matthews, the two men talked animal rights. ‘He was responsive and agreed we had a valid point,’ Matthews says.

“That point was driven home in February, when the Humane Society released a report that stunned the fashion industry by alleging products sold as imitation fur are occasionally made from animal fur. In fact, of the 25 garments tested, 8 supposedly faux-fur garments used real fur in some cases from wild raccoon dogs and domestic dogs, including a German shepherd-collie mix.”

It opens:

“In the ongoing battle between the fashion industry and anti-fur activists, the last few weeks have been especially busy.

“On Tuesday, the Humane Society of the United States accused various manufacturers and retailers of selling mislabeled fur, some of it derived from dogs, wolves and raccoon dogs. The group filed a legal petition with the Federal Trade Commission looking to get the merchandise off the racks and the stores and design houses fined.

“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals also fired off a press release announcing that Tommy Hilfiger has decided to ban fur from future collections.

“Two weeks earlier, fur protesters managed to sneak past security to interrupt the Valentino and Christian Lacroix runway shows in Paris, where they optimized their likelihood of capturing attention by stripping off their clothes before hoisting their anti-fur placards aloft. They were quickly tackled by security guards, but not before spectators got a full frontal eyeful.

Thanks to mass interest from viewers, demonstrated as the Today Show posted many appreciative comments on its website, the Today Show continues to cover the issue of real fur — often dog fur — being labelled as faux. Today’s follow-up story, Wednesday March14, again includes reports of animals being beaten over the head and skinned alive. It shows pictures of adorable little puppies (racoon dog or other) being bred in China for their fur. And — great news — it reports that thanks to the scandal, some designers have decided to stop selling fur altogether.

Because of all the interest, the web site’s “Question of the Day” is still “Would you wear a coat made of doggie fur?”

If you have not yet voted, please go to the site and choose the third option, against all fur. If you tried to vote yesterday and found the servers jammed, thank you, how wonderful, and please keep trying. The story and poll are on line at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/